Forum Settings
       
« Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
Reply To Thread

Indiana cuts off Planned ParenthoodFollow

#1 May 11 2011 at 10:32 AM Rating: Good
***
2,155 posts
Indiana Gov. Mitch Daniels signed a measure Tuesday imposing some of the nation's tightest restrictions on abortions and making Indiana the first state to cut off funding to Planned Parenthood.
...
Daniels, a Republican known as a fiscal hawk, is considering a run for president in 2012. Adding his signature to the abortion bill will likely help his image among social conservatives who were upset over Daniels' previous calls for a Republican "truce" on social issues.
...
The law cuts off about $3 million in public funds used to pay for services such as birth control, cancer screening and tests for sexually transmitted diseases.


But hey, at least he's earning brownie points in his party.

Also, it kind of **** me off that the media is trying to spin this as a majorly anti-abortion bill. It does have additional restrictions, but that doesn't seem to be its main focus.
#2 May 11 2011 at 10:43 AM Rating: Decent
We Does Not Hugglez
*****
10,245 posts
ChanchanXI wrote:
Indiana Gov. Mitch Daniels signed a measure Tuesday imposing some of the nation's tightest restrictions on abortions and making Indiana the first state to cut off funding to Planned Parenthood.
...
Daniels, a Republican known as a fiscal hawk, is considering a run for president in 2012. Adding his signature to the abortion bill will likely help his image among social conservatives who were upset over Daniels' previous calls for a Republican "truce" on social issues.
...
The law cuts off about $3 million in public funds used to pay for services such as birth control, cancer screening and tests for sexually transmitted diseases.


But hey, at least he's earning brownie points in his party.

Also, it kind of **** me off that the media is trying to spin this as a majorly anti-abortion bill. It does have additional restrictions, but that doesn't seem to be its main focus.

I just can't figure out what the objection is to cutting off public funding for elective services. I would never suggest that this is either the most glaring or most costly example of such a spend, but all of the services provided by Planned Parenthood are elective. None of them can reasonably be said to be a necessity.
____________________________
I had a very witty signature once, but apparently it offended the sensibilities of some of the frailer constitutions that frequent this particular internet message board.

[The rest of this message has been censored and I can't tell you what I actually think of you]
#3 May 11 2011 at 10:49 AM Rating: Excellent
Gurue
*****
16,282 posts
I don't know why anyone wants to cut off access to birth control. Do we really want young girls and/or people that just can't afford the pill to just be having unwanted babies all willy-nilly? The pill is expensive and a lot of insurance plans don't cover it.
#4 May 11 2011 at 10:53 AM Rating: Decent
We Does Not Hugglez
*****
10,245 posts
Nadenu wrote:
I don't know why anyone wants to cut off access to birth control. Do we really want young girls and/or people that just can't afford the pill to just be having unwanted babies all willy-nilly? The pill is expensive and a lot of insurance plans don't cover it.

I get that, but it's not a function government should undertake, from my perspective. I won't use the slippery slope argument, but I am genuinely curious where it stops. We've gotten to the place in this country where we're willing, with no sense of irony, to accept that paying for two years of unemployment benefits for able-bodied people is not only economically stimulative but our responsibility to those effected by economic downturn. How much is enough? The choice is borrow a few hundred billion more or pay more in taxes, and the one leads to the other.

Edited, May 11th 2011 11:54am by MoebiusLord
____________________________
I had a very witty signature once, but apparently it offended the sensibilities of some of the frailer constitutions that frequent this particular internet message board.

[The rest of this message has been censored and I can't tell you what I actually think of you]
#5 May 11 2011 at 10:58 AM Rating: Decent
****
9,268 posts
Quote:
cancer screening


Why cut cancer screening? That's just terrible.
____________________________
Master Meleagant Driftwood of Stromm, Warrior of the 69th level(EQ)
Rhyys, Human Warrior of 67th level(WoW)

The World Is Not A Cold Dead Place.
Alan Watts wrote:
I am omnipotent insofar as I am the Universe, but I am not an omnipotent in the role of Alan Watts, only cunning


Eske wrote:
I've always read Driftwood as the straight man in varus' double act. It helps if you read all of his posts in the voice of Droopy Dog.
#6 May 11 2011 at 10:58 AM Rating: Excellent
***
2,155 posts
MoebiusLord wrote:
ChanchanXI wrote:
Indiana Gov. Mitch Daniels signed a measure Tuesday imposing some of the nation's tightest restrictions on abortions and making Indiana the first state to cut off funding to Planned Parenthood.
...
Daniels, a Republican known as a fiscal hawk, is considering a run for president in 2012. Adding his signature to the abortion bill will likely help his image among social conservatives who were upset over Daniels' previous calls for a Republican "truce" on social issues.
...
The law cuts off about $3 million in public funds used to pay for services such as birth control, cancer screening and tests for sexually transmitted diseases.


But hey, at least he's earning brownie points in his party.

Also, it kind of **** me off that the media is trying to spin this as a majorly anti-abortion bill. It does have additional restrictions, but that doesn't seem to be its main focus.

I just can't figure out what the objection is to cutting off public funding for elective services. I would never suggest that this is either the most glaring or most costly example of such a spend, but all of the services provided by Planned Parenthood are elective. None of them can reasonably be said to be a necessity.


While I would not overgeneralize to that extent, I do agree there are a lot of elective services that the government funds that could be better spent (even if that's not spent at all). However, I do think that some elective services are worth the investment, such as Planned Parenthood. I do not personally know the exact figures on the cost for birth control, but my understanding is that it is quite expensive.

Even if one were to approach it from an economic instead of a humanitarian point of view, my guess it is less expensive to the government to continue to fund an organization issuing birth control, such as Planned Parenthood, than it would be to account for the tax breaks, welfare, other social programs were those same individuals to spawn. It honestly seems to me Daniels only signed this to earn "rep" with the Republicans.
#7 May 11 2011 at 11:01 AM Rating: Decent
Prodigal Son
*****
19,888 posts
Driftwood wrote:
Quote:
cancer screening


Why cut cancer screening? That's just terrible.

People need to pay for their own medical bills, duh!
____________________________
publiusvarus wrote:
we all know liberals are well adjusted american citizens who only want what's best for society. While conservatives are evil money grubbing scum who only want to sh*t on the little man and rob the world of its resources.
#8 May 11 2011 at 11:04 AM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
MoebiusLord wrote:
I won't use the slippery slope argument, but I am genuinely curious where it stops.

Smiley: dubious
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#9 May 11 2011 at 11:06 AM Rating: Excellent
Sage
****
4,041 posts
Yes, birth control and cancer screening are important, but what's really important for EVERYONE's health is easy access to STD testing. The less people that are getting tested, the more likely **** will spread. It's a scary world we live in.

Iowa has their **** all up in a tizzy because an abortion doctor from Omaha wants to open up a clinic that specializes in late-term abortions right on the border. Nothing illegal obviously, but the fact that a doctor moved across state lines to take advantage of our abortion laws is causing quite the stir.
#10 May 11 2011 at 11:15 AM Rating: Excellent
***
2,069 posts
I can't believe I voted for this asshat.
____________________________
http://www.marriageissogay.com/

Song of the day:
May 26, 2011 -- Transplants
#11 May 11 2011 at 11:29 AM Rating: Default
We Does Not Hugglez
*****
10,245 posts
Ailitardif wrote:
I can't believe I voted for this asshat.

I can't believe you figured out how to vote.
____________________________
I had a very witty signature once, but apparently it offended the sensibilities of some of the frailer constitutions that frequent this particular internet message board.

[The rest of this message has been censored and I can't tell you what I actually think of you]
#12 May 11 2011 at 11:33 AM Rating: Excellent
Cervixhouse-Five
******
30,635 posts
Guenny wrote:
Yes, birth control and cancer screening are important, but what's really important for EVERYONE's health is easy access to STD testing. The less people that are getting tested, the more likely sh*t will spread. It's a scary world we live in.


And overall women's health, of course. But noooo. ~3% of their services involve abortion, so it should be completely defunded, even though there's already a law that keeps state money from funding abortions.
#13 May 11 2011 at 11:54 AM Rating: Excellent
***
3,362 posts
When will people realize that the availability of birth control is directly related to the level of poverty? If women are allowed control over their reproductive cycle, poverty drops. It's worked in every case, and yet we all want to look the other way and pretend we can cut PP like it's nothing needed. Sure, if you want to take the Constitutionalist standpoint and say it's up to the states to fund it, then make sure your state funds it. It is a necessity... for birth control, for STD testing, for women's health.
#14 May 11 2011 at 11:56 AM Rating: Decent
Official Shrubbery Waterer
*****
14,032 posts
Guenny wrote:
Yes, birth control and cancer screening are important, but what's really important for EVERYONE's health is easy access to STD testing. The less people that are getting tested, the more likely sh*t will spread. It's a scary world we live in.

I'd rather fund cancer screening than birth control or STD testing; the former is a horrible and horribly expensive disease without selection bias, while the latter two are the result of conscious decisions while failing to take proper protection measures. I mean, honestly, condoms aren't that expensive.

Quote:
But noooo. ~3% of their services involve abortion, so it should be completely defunded, even though there's already a law that keeps state money from funding abortions.

The article appears to be purposefully vague as to which funds exactly were yanked. My assumption is that they were State funds, which makes the following paragraph all the more confusing (emphasis mine):
Quote:
While the law cuts off the stream of funding for Planned Parenthood immediately, organization President Betty **** said its offices would open Wednesday to see scheduled patients. **** said the organization will use its Women's Health Fund to cover the cost of patients who rely on federal funding for birth control or health exams.

So what they're saying is that the revoking of State funds impedes the delivery of health care paid for via Federal funds. Am I to assume that there are no hospitals, clinics, or other venues where women can receive care (not including abortions)?
____________________________
Almalieque wrote:
I'm biased against statistics

#15 May 11 2011 at 11:56 AM Rating: Excellent
***
2,069 posts
MoebiusLord wrote:
Ailitardif wrote:
I can't believe I voted for this asshat.

I can't believe you figured out how to vote.

I can explain it to you if you're having trouble. PM me :P
____________________________
http://www.marriageissogay.com/

Song of the day:
May 26, 2011 -- Transplants
#16 May 11 2011 at 12:19 PM Rating: Decent
We Does Not Hugglez
*****
10,245 posts
LeWoVoc wrote:
When will people realize that the availability of birth control is directly related to the level of poverty? If women are allowed control over their reproductive cycle, poverty drops. It's worked in every case, and yet we all want to look the other way and pretend we can cut PP like it's nothing needed. Sure, if you want to take the Constitutionalist standpoint and say it's up to the states to fund it, then make sure your state funds it. It is a necessity... for birth control, for STD testing, for women's health.

Prove it.

The idea that spending of any sort is linked to a reduction in poverty in the United States is ridiculous. Simple research can show that astronomical growth in spending does little, if anything, to reduce poverty. The percentages of U.S. households below the poverty line vs. State & Federal spending on welfare & social services over 3 decades should be proof enough for anyone.

spneding link

Year			Percent 	Welfare & Social Services Spending 
1975			12.3			52.6 
1976			11.8			57.5 
1977			11.6			60.6 
1978			11.4			65.3 
1979			11.7			72.2 
1980			13			86 
1981			14			92.9 
1982			15			94.1 
1983			15.2			101.3 
1984			14.4			106.6 
1985			14			110.9 
1986			13.6			116.1 
1987			13.4			119.6 
1988			13			127.2 
1989			12.8			136.8 
1990			13.5			153.8 
1991			14.2			174.8 
1992			14.8			195.9 
1993			15.1			207.5 
1994			14.5			219.8 
1995			13.8			226.2 
1996			13.7			225.7 
1997			13.3			222.8 
1998			12.7			225.5 
1999			11.9			234.2 
2000			11.3			243.3 
2001			11.7			259.3 
2002			12.1			280.5 
2003			12.5			297.6 
2004			12.7			305.3 
2005			12.6			322 
2006			12.3			325.8 
2007			12.5			344.6
____________________________
I had a very witty signature once, but apparently it offended the sensibilities of some of the frailer constitutions that frequent this particular internet message board.

[The rest of this message has been censored and I can't tell you what I actually think of you]
#17 May 11 2011 at 12:21 PM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
I'm just spitballin' but I would guess that perhaps the federal grants go through the state department of health or something.

...I just looked at a different article. The funds are delivered via the states' Medicaid programs. This may set up a legal issue as
LA times wrote:
But the federal Medicaid Act, which pays for care for patients who are poor, says such people may choose any provider who is "qualified" and "willing" to provide the service. In many states, Planned Parenthood clinics provide basic healthcare and medical tests for low-income women.


Twiz wrote:
Am I to assume that there are no hospitals, clinics, or other venues where women can receive care

I think the issue is the bill at the end of the services. Although it would stand to reason that areas served by PP may have fewer other clinics providing the same services, especially on a subsidized basis.
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#18 May 11 2011 at 12:24 PM Rating: Excellent
Cervixhouse-Five
******
30,635 posts
Demea wrote:
Quote:
But noooo. ~3% of their services involve abortion, so it should be completely defunded, even though there's already a law that keeps state money from funding abortions.

The article appears to be purposefully vague as to which funds exactly were yanked. My assumption is that they were State funds, which makes the following paragraph all the more confusing (emphasis mine):
Quote:
While the law cuts off the stream of funding for Planned Parenthood immediately, organization President Betty **** said its offices would open Wednesday to see scheduled patients. **** said the organization will use its Women's Health Fund to cover the cost of patients who rely on federal funding for birth control or health exams.

So what they're saying is that the revoking of State funds impedes the delivery of health care paid for via Federal funds. Am I to assume that there are no hospitals, clinics, or other venues where women can receive care (not including abortions)?


From what I heard on the radio last night, this would mean they couldn't accept Medicare for these types of services. The guy who sponsored the bill, or someone else involved, I can't remember, said that he looked into it and there were other clinics (free clinics, health clinics, etc.) nearby that would do these services. But one lady they spoke to who uses Planned Parenthood for these services said she went to the health department and they didn't offer pap smears and breast screenings.

In addition, this would mean that 26,000 women wouldn't be able to take advantage of these services at PP, and that would probably overwhelm the clinics that might be able to accommodate them.
#19 May 11 2011 at 1:03 PM Rating: Excellent
MoebiusLord wrote:
LeWoVoc wrote:
When will people realize that the availability of birth control is directly related to the level of poverty? If women are allowed control over their reproductive cycle, poverty drops. It's worked in every case, and yet we all want to look the other way and pretend we can cut PP like it's nothing needed. Sure, if you want to take the Constitutionalist standpoint and say it's up to the states to fund it, then make sure your state funds it. It is a necessity... for birth control, for STD testing, for women's health.

Prove it.

The idea that spending of any sort is linked to a reduction in poverty in the United States is ridiculous. Simple research can show that astronomical growth in spending does little, if anything, to reduce poverty. The percentages of U.S. households below the poverty line vs. State & Federal spending on welfare & social services over 3 decades should be proof enough for anyone.

spneding link

Year			Percent 	Welfare & Social Services Spending 
1975			12.3			52.6 
1976			11.8			57.5 
1977			11.6			60.6 
1978			11.4			65.3 
1979			11.7			72.2 
1980			13			86 
1981			14			92.9 
1982			15			94.1 
1983			15.2			101.3 
1984			14.4			106.6 
1985			14			110.9 
1986			13.6			116.1 
1987			13.4			119.6 
1988			13			127.2 
1989			12.8			136.8 
1990			13.5			153.8 
1991			14.2			174.8 
1992			14.8			195.9 
1993			15.1			207.5 
1994			14.5			219.8 
1995			13.8			226.2 
1996			13.7			225.7 
1997			13.3			222.8 
1998			12.7			225.5 
1999			11.9			234.2 
2000			11.3			243.3 
2001			11.7			259.3 
2002			12.1			280.5 
2003			12.5			297.6 
2004			12.7			305.3 
2005			12.6			322 
2006			12.3			325.8 
2007			12.5			344.6


Well, that's a big, scary chart, but it's not adjusted for inflation. That makes it not quite as scary.
____________________________
Come on Bill, let's go home
[ffxisig]63311[/ffxisig]
#20 May 11 2011 at 1:05 PM Rating: Good
Drunken English Bastard
*****
15,262 posts
MoebiusLord wrote:
LeWoVoc wrote:
When will people realize that the availability of birth control is directly related to the level of poverty? If women are allowed control over their reproductive cycle, poverty drops. It's worked in every case, and yet we all want to look the other way and pretend we can cut PP like it's nothing needed. Sure, if you want to take the Constitutionalist standpoint and say it's up to the states to fund it, then make sure your state funds it. It is a necessity... for birth control, for STD testing, for women's health.

Prove it.

What makes you think he was talking solely about the United States?
____________________________
My Movember page
Solrain wrote:
WARs can use semi-colons however we want. I once killed a guy with a semi-colon.

LordFaramir wrote:
ODESNT MATTER CAUSE I HAVE ALCHOLOL IN MY VEINGS BETCH ;3
#21 May 11 2011 at 1:21 PM Rating: Good
Soulless Internet Tiger
******
34,677 posts
Nilatai wrote:
MoebiusLord wrote:
LeWoVoc wrote:
When will people realize that the availability of birth control is directly related to the level of poverty? If women are allowed control over their reproductive cycle, poverty drops. It's worked in every case, and yet we all want to look the other way and pretend we can cut PP like it's nothing needed. Sure, if you want to take the Constitutionalist standpoint and say it's up to the states to fund it, then make sure your state funds it. It is a necessity... for birth control, for STD testing, for women's health.

Prove it.

What makes you think he was talking solely about the United States?


2 issues here.

1) Moe doesn't really care what happens outside of the US
2) The statement "It's worked in every case" is awfully bold and even one example completely discredits LWV's argument.
____________________________
Donate. One day it could be your family.
Need a hotel at a great rate? More hotels being added weekly.

An invasion of armies can be resisted, but not an idea whose time has come. Victor Hugo

#22 May 11 2011 at 1:25 PM Rating: Decent
We Does Not Hugglez
*****
10,245 posts
Technogeek wrote:
Well, that's a big, scary chart, but it's not adjusted for inflation. That makes it not quite as scary.

So you're suggesting overspending on social services decreases poverty?

Nilatai wrote:
MoebiusLord wrote:
LeWoVoc wrote:
When will people realize that the availability of birth control is directly related to the level of poverty? If women are allowed control over their reproductive cycle, poverty drops. It's worked in every case, and yet we all want to look the other way and pretend we can cut PP like it's nothing needed. Sure, if you want to take the Constitutionalist standpoint and say it's up to the states to fund it, then make sure your state funds it. It is a necessity... for birth control, for STD testing, for women's health.

Prove it.

What makes you think he was talking solely about the United States?

What makes you think I was talking solely about the United States? Are you familiar with the English language? I can help, if you like. "Every case" tends to be all inclusive. Thanks for playing, but shut the f'uck up.
____________________________
I had a very witty signature once, but apparently it offended the sensibilities of some of the frailer constitutions that frequent this particular internet message board.

[The rest of this message has been censored and I can't tell you what I actually think of you]
#23 May 11 2011 at 1:29 PM Rating: Excellent
******
43,432 posts
I guess its time to buy some stock in wire hangers.
____________________________
George Carlin wrote:
I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.
#24 May 11 2011 at 1:34 PM Rating: Excellent
Gurue
*****
16,282 posts
No, condoms are not expensive. But let's try to live in the real world, shall we? How many 16 year old boys that wanna score with their 15/16 year old girlfriend are going to wear one? Not many, because kids at that age have no idea about consequences. I know, I was once that age. And if the girls ask them to wear one, the guy will complain and the girl will cave to either avoid an argument or because she's afraid of losing him.

The pill is usually the best option, but like I said, most insurance companies would rather pay for the expensive delivery and subsequently cover the kid for 18 years or so rather than help the woman with 50 bucks a month for her pills.

Stupid ****
#25 May 11 2011 at 1:37 PM Rating: Good
Cervixhouse-Five
******
30,635 posts
Nadenu wrote:
The pill is usually the best option, but like I said, most insurance companies would rather pay for the expensive delivery and subsequently cover the kid for 18 years or so rather than help the woman with 50 bucks a month for her pills.

Stupid sh*t.


My insurance covers the pill. I think a lot of insurance policies do now. They've wised up a little.

ETA: I don't know if Medicare would, though...

Edited, May 11th 2011 2:37pm by Belkira
#26 May 11 2011 at 1:41 PM Rating: Excellent
MoebiusLord wrote:
Technogeek wrote:
Well, that's a big, scary chart, but it's not adjusted for inflation. That makes it not quite as scary.

So you're suggesting overspending on social services decreases poverty?



Show me where I suggested this. My point was only that your numbers were screwy since they did not adjust for inflation. I get that it's your opinion that the gov't shouldn't be spending on social programs. It's my opinion that they should.

That's why we have elections.
____________________________
Come on Bill, let's go home
[ffxisig]63311[/ffxisig]
#27 May 11 2011 at 1:45 PM Rating: Decent
We Does Not Hugglez
*****
10,245 posts
Technogeek wrote:
MoebiusLord wrote:
Technogeek wrote:
Well, that's a big, scary chart, but it's not adjusted for inflation. That makes it not quite as scary.

So you're suggesting overspending on social services decreases poverty?



Show me where I suggested this. My point was only that your numbers were screwy since they did not adjust for inflation. I get that it's your opinion that the gov't shouldn't be spending on social programs. It's my opinion that they should.

That's why we have elections.

It's called a yes or no question.

I don't give a flying f'uck what you believe, because you're a dumbass. Also because it's entirely beside the point. The point is not whether or not spending should occur, but that there is no significant decline in poverty associated with increased spending. Avoidance is childish, so I provided you with an out, knowing you wouldn't take it. Thanks for playing, though!
____________________________
I had a very witty signature once, but apparently it offended the sensibilities of some of the frailer constitutions that frequent this particular internet message board.

[The rest of this message has been censored and I can't tell you what I actually think of you]
#28 May 11 2011 at 1:45 PM Rating: Excellent
Gurue
*****
16,282 posts
Belkira wrote:
Nadenu wrote:
The pill is usually the best option, but like I said, most insurance companies would rather pay for the expensive delivery and subsequently cover the kid for 18 years or so rather than help the woman with 50 bucks a month for her pills.

Stupid sh*t.


My insurance covers the pill. I think a lot of insurance policies do now. They've wised up a little.

ETA: I don't know if Medicare would, though...

Edited, May 11th 2011 2:37pm by Belkira


That's good then. I've not had to take the pill in about 10 years so I'm not sure how it's done anymore. If insurance is finally covering birth control, that's one small step in the right direction.
#29 May 11 2011 at 1:48 PM Rating: Excellent
Muggle@#%^er
Avatar
*****
19,651 posts
Making condoms cheap and available is a pretty wise option, imo, considering the frequency of STI cases in this country.

Making the pill available is less important to me. Condoms are useful in that they stop pregnancy and the spread of disease. The pill only stops infection and is far more expensive. Of course, that's not to say the pill doesn't have additional advantages, but the STI aspect of condoms makes it the better thing to fund, imo, if you can only pick one.

Having funding for neither, though, seems like a horrible decision to me.

But PP definitely offered a wide range of services that were extremely useful to the society as a whole. Cancer screening has already been mentioned. Other pregnancy-related services are offered. Counselling.
____________________________
IDrownFish wrote:
Anyways, you all are horrible, @#%^ed up people

lolgaxe wrote:
Never underestimate the healing power of a massive dong.
#30 May 11 2011 at 2:00 PM Rating: Good
MoebiusLord wrote:
Technogeek wrote:
MoebiusLord wrote:
Technogeek wrote:
Well, that's a big, scary chart, but it's not adjusted for inflation. That makes it not quite as scary.

So you're suggesting overspending on social services decreases poverty?



Show me where I suggested this. My point was only that your numbers were screwy since they did not adjust for inflation. I get that it's your opinion that the gov't shouldn't be spending on social programs. It's my opinion that they should.

That's why we have elections.

It's called a yes or no question.

I don't give a flying f'uck what you believe, because you're a dumbass. Also because it's entirely beside the point. The point is not whether or not spending should occur, but that there is no significant decline in poverty associated with increased spending. Avoidance is childish, so I provided you with an out, knowing you wouldn't take it. Thanks for playing, though!


Awww, big scary troll is grumpy today. What makes you think I give a **** what you think either?
____________________________
Come on Bill, let's go home
[ffxisig]63311[/ffxisig]
#31 May 11 2011 at 2:06 PM Rating: Excellent
Sage
****
4,041 posts
Demea wrote:
Guenny wrote:
Yes, birth control and cancer screening are important, but what's really important for EVERYONE's health is easy access to STD testing. The less people that are getting tested, the more likely sh*t will spread. It's a scary world we live in.

I'd rather fund cancer screening than birth control or STD testing; the former is a horrible and horribly expensive disease without selection bias, while the latter two are the result of conscious decisions while failing to take proper protection measures. I mean, honestly, condoms aren't that expensive.


No, condoms aren't expensive, but they also don't protect you 100% from STDs. There's really no way to be 100% safe from STDs or pregnancy, no matter how much protection/birth control you use, short of abstinence. And since we all belong to the human species, which is very sexual, we better think about the real world and how effective telling anyone to just not have **** is.
#32 May 11 2011 at 2:11 PM Rating: Good
We Does Not Hugglez
*****
10,245 posts
Technogeek wrote:
Awww, big scary troll is grumpy today. What makes you think I give a **** what you think either?
Mostly just that you keep asking.
____________________________
I had a very witty signature once, but apparently it offended the sensibilities of some of the frailer constitutions that frequent this particular internet message board.

[The rest of this message has been censored and I can't tell you what I actually think of you]
#33 May 11 2011 at 2:17 PM Rating: Good
Drunken English Bastard
*****
15,262 posts
MoebiusLord wrote:
Nilatai wrote:
MoebiusLord wrote:
LeWoVoc wrote:
When will people realize that the availability of birth control is directly related to the level of poverty? If women are allowed control over their reproductive cycle, poverty drops. It's worked in every case, and yet we all want to look the other way and pretend we can cut PP like it's nothing needed. Sure, if you want to take the Constitutionalist standpoint and say it's up to the states to fund it, then make sure your state funds it. It is a necessity... for birth control, for STD testing, for women's health.

Prove it.

What makes you think he was talking solely about the United States?

What makes you think I was talking solely about the United States? Are you familiar with the English language? I can help, if you like. "Every case" tends to be all inclusive. Thanks for playing, but shut the f'uck up.
Hi, read. This is what he was talking about you vapid excuse for a human being.
____________________________
My Movember page
Solrain wrote:
WARs can use semi-colons however we want. I once killed a guy with a semi-colon.

LordFaramir wrote:
ODESNT MATTER CAUSE I HAVE ALCHOLOL IN MY VEINGS BETCH ;3
#34 May 11 2011 at 2:19 PM Rating: Good
MoebiusLord wrote:
Technogeek wrote:
Awww, big scary troll is grumpy today. What makes you think I give a **** what you think either?
Mostly just that you keep asking.


Actually, in my 3 posts in this thread, that was my only question. Perhaps you need new glasses.
____________________________
Come on Bill, let's go home
[ffxisig]63311[/ffxisig]
#35 May 11 2011 at 2:22 PM Rating: Decent
We Does Not Hugglez
*****
10,245 posts
Guenny wrote:
No, condoms aren't expensive, but they also don't protect you 100% from STDs. There's really no way to be 100% safe from STDs or pregnancy, no matter how much protection/birth control you use, short of abstinence. And since we all belong to the human species, which is very sexual, we better think about the real world and how effective telling anyone to just not have **** is.

So the answer is to publicly fund a birth control method shown emphatically to lead to less safe sex?
Baeten
Risk of HIV Infection in Oral Contraceptive Pill Users: A Meta-analysis
____________________________
I had a very witty signature once, but apparently it offended the sensibilities of some of the frailer constitutions that frequent this particular internet message board.

[The rest of this message has been censored and I can't tell you what I actually think of you]
#36 May 11 2011 at 2:26 PM Rating: Decent
We Does Not Hugglez
*****
10,245 posts
Nilatai wrote:
MoebiusLord wrote:
Nilatai wrote:
MoebiusLord wrote:
LeWoVoc wrote:
When will people realize that the availability of birth control is directly related to the level of poverty? If women are allowed control over their reproductive cycle, poverty drops. It's worked in every case, and yet we all want to look the other way and pretend we can cut PP like it's nothing needed. Sure, if you want to take the Constitutionalist standpoint and say it's up to the states to fund it, then make sure your state funds it. It is a necessity... for birth control, for STD testing, for women's health.

Prove it.

What makes you think he was talking solely about the United States?

What makes you think I was talking solely about the United States? Are you familiar with the English language? I can help, if you like. "Every case" tends to be all inclusive. Thanks for playing, but shut the f'uck up.
Hi, read. This is what he was talking about you vapid excuse for a human being.

Ohhhhh! I get it now. In the U.K. "every case" means "every time the U.N. monitors the spending in some 3rd world sh:thole." Thanks for clearing that one up for me.

Seriously? You can't be have that tenuous a hold on normal brain function.
____________________________
I had a very witty signature once, but apparently it offended the sensibilities of some of the frailer constitutions that frequent this particular internet message board.

[The rest of this message has been censored and I can't tell you what I actually think of you]
#37 May 11 2011 at 2:26 PM Rating: Good
We Does Not Hugglez
*****
10,245 posts
Technogeek wrote:
MoebiusLord wrote:
Technogeek wrote:
Awww, big scary troll is grumpy today. What makes you think I give a **** what you think either?
Mostly just that you keep asking.


Actually, in my 3 posts in this thread, that was my only question. Perhaps you need new glasses.

So, you didn't ask?
____________________________
I had a very witty signature once, but apparently it offended the sensibilities of some of the frailer constitutions that frequent this particular internet message board.

[The rest of this message has been censored and I can't tell you what I actually think of you]
#38 May 11 2011 at 2:29 PM Rating: Good
Muggle@#%^er
Avatar
*****
19,651 posts
Because PP is most used by lower class peoples, and because the rate of STI transfer between them is already much, much higher in general, I actually agree with Moe that the pill should still be a personal cost. But I firmly believe that there should be easy and ready access to condoms across the board.

I'm not even considering my social or economic beliefs here--all I care about is curving the spread of STIs. The pill doesn't protect against them at all, and women on the pill have been shown to be vastly less likely to use condoms. It's really a bad move, imo.

If you are in a committed relationship, you have an incentive to use the pill instead. And you're much less likely to contract an STI. Plus, you can make the pill a shared cost.
____________________________
IDrownFish wrote:
Anyways, you all are horrible, @#%^ed up people

lolgaxe wrote:
Never underestimate the healing power of a massive dong.
#39 May 11 2011 at 2:31 PM Rating: Default
Encyclopedia
******
31,478 posts
ChanchanXI wrote:
Even if one were to approach it from an economic instead of a humanitarian point of view, my guess it is less expensive to the government to continue to fund an organization issuing birth control, such as Planned Parenthood, than it would be to account for the tax breaks, welfare, other social programs were those same individuals to spawn. It honestly seems to me Daniels only signed this to earn "rep" with the Republicans.


To support this argument, you'd need to show that government funding for birth control actually decreases the rate at which children are born into the conditions you describe. While it seems at first glance like it must obviously be true, it's not really that cut and dried.
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#40 May 11 2011 at 2:34 PM Rating: Good
Drunken English Bastard
*****
15,262 posts
MoebiusLord wrote:
Ohhhhh! I get it now. In the U.K. "every case" means "every time the U.N. monitors the spending in some 3rd world sh:thole." Thanks for clearing that one up for me.

Seriously? You can't be have that tenuous a hold on normal brain function.
Ooh, so you don't see studies that show that putting money into programs like planned parenthood helps poor people be less poor as relevant? Awesome, I guess the 44 million US citizens who live below the poverty line can go suck a **** huh?

Again, go fuck yourself.
____________________________
My Movember page
Solrain wrote:
WARs can use semi-colons however we want. I once killed a guy with a semi-colon.

LordFaramir wrote:
ODESNT MATTER CAUSE I HAVE ALCHOLOL IN MY VEINGS BETCH ;3
#41 May 11 2011 at 2:42 PM Rating: Excellent
Scholar
****
5,159 posts
gbaji wrote:
To support this argument, you'd need to show that government funding for birth control actually decreases the rate at which children are born into the conditions you describe. While it seems at first glance like it must obviously be true, it's not really that cut and dried.

Of course, when it's your argument that has no numbers backing it up, it is that cut and dried, right?
#42 May 11 2011 at 2:44 PM Rating: Excellent
***
2,155 posts
gbaji wrote:
ChanchanXI wrote:
Even if one were to approach it from an economic instead of a humanitarian point of view, my guess it is less expensive to the government to continue to fund an organization issuing birth control, such as Planned Parenthood, than it would be to account for the tax breaks, welfare, other social programs were those same individuals to spawn. It honestly seems to me Daniels only signed this to earn "rep" with the Republicans.


To support this argument, you'd need to show that government funding for birth control actually decreases the rate at which children are born into the conditions you describe. While it seems at first glance like it must obviously be true, it's not really that cut and dried.


I agree, I would need data to validate my hypothesis. The actual truth is very likely that not every case of removal of birth control would result in procreation. I think it's a pretty good assumption, though, that people are not going to just stop having **** at all. They may fill the birth control void with a different method of contraceptive, but (again, decent assumption) birth control via PP is usually aimed at those whose options are already quite limited.

I also agree with comments echoed above regarding public health consciousness via STI screenings. I had not considered that viewpoint, but I agree with the sentiment.
#43 May 11 2011 at 2:49 PM Rating: Default
We Does Not Hugglez
*****
10,245 posts
Nilatai wrote:
MoebiusLord wrote:
Ohhhhh! I get it now. In the U.K. "every case" means "every time the U.N. monitors the spending in some 3rd world sh:thole." Thanks for clearing that one up for me.

Seriously? You can't be have that tenuous a hold on normal brain function.
Ooh, so you don't see studies that show that putting money into programs like planned parenthood helps poor people be less poor as relevant? Awesome, I guess the 44 million US citizens who live below the poverty line can go suck a **** huh?

Again, go fuck yourself.

"every case"

Say it with me, slowly, one syllable at a time. It's simple, because there are only 4.

"every case"

See? It's easy. Even for a Brit.

It's a terrible burden, being right. I shall, someday, succumb to the immense pressure, I think.

Not today, but someday.
____________________________
I had a very witty signature once, but apparently it offended the sensibilities of some of the frailer constitutions that frequent this particular internet message board.

[The rest of this message has been censored and I can't tell you what I actually think of you]
#44 May 11 2011 at 2:52 PM Rating: Decent
***
2,069 posts
MoebiusLord wrote:


It's a terrible burden, being right. I shall, someday, succumb to the immense pressure, I think.

Not today, but someday.

I hope it's soon.
____________________________
http://www.marriageissogay.com/

Song of the day:
May 26, 2011 -- Transplants
#45 May 11 2011 at 2:53 PM Rating: Decent
Official Shrubbery Waterer
*****
14,032 posts
Nadenu wrote:
No, condoms are not expensive. But let's try to live in the real world, shall we? How many 16 year old boys that wanna score with their 15/16 year old girlfriend are going to wear one?

How many 15- or 16-year-old girls are on birth control?

Quote:
Not many, because kids at that age have no idea about consequences. I know, I was once that age.

I seem to distinctly remember taking a sex-education course in 6th grade that included discussions of sex, pregnancy, contraception, and STDs. We had to look at slides of genital warts!

Quote:
And if the girls ask them to wear one, the guy will complain and the girl will cave to either avoid an argument or because she's afraid of losing him.
Sure, if she's a co-dependent skank. Hypothetical anecdotes don't hold much sway with me.

Quote:
The pill is usually the best option, but like I said, most insurance companies would rather pay for the expensive delivery and subsequently cover the kid for 18 years or so rather than help the woman with 50 bucks a month for her pills.

This statement is based on... what, exactly?
____________________________
Almalieque wrote:
I'm biased against statistics

#46 May 11 2011 at 2:54 PM Rating: Decent
We Does Not Hugglez
*****
10,245 posts
Ailitardif wrote:
MoebiusLord wrote:


It's a terrible burden, being right. I shall, someday, succumb to the immense pressure, I think.

Not today, but someday.

I hope it's soon.

Down, girl. Daddy's got no time to scratch your belly right now.
____________________________
I had a very witty signature once, but apparently it offended the sensibilities of some of the frailer constitutions that frequent this particular internet message board.

[The rest of this message has been censored and I can't tell you what I actually think of you]
#47 May 11 2011 at 2:55 PM Rating: Good
Drunken English Bastard
*****
15,262 posts
MoebiusLord wrote:
Nilatai wrote:
MoebiusLord wrote:
Ohhhhh! I get it now. In the U.K. "every case" means "every time the U.N. monitors the spending in some 3rd world sh:thole." Thanks for clearing that one up for me.

Seriously? You can't be have that tenuous a hold on normal brain function.
Ooh, so you don't see studies that show that putting money into programs like planned parenthood helps poor people be less poor as relevant? Awesome, I guess the 44 million US citizens who live below the poverty line can go suck a **** huh?

Again, go fuck yourself.

"every case"

Say it with me, slowly, one syllable at a time. It's simple, because there are only 4.

"every case"

See? It's easy. Even for a Brit.

It's a terrible burden, being right. I shall, someday, succumb to the immense pressure, I think.

Not today, but someday.
It is every case you fuckwit. You don't think the US' poverty statistics would be a lot worse off if birth control weren't as readily available as it is?
____________________________
My Movember page
Solrain wrote:
WARs can use semi-colons however we want. I once killed a guy with a semi-colon.

LordFaramir wrote:
ODESNT MATTER CAUSE I HAVE ALCHOLOL IN MY VEINGS BETCH ;3
#48 May 11 2011 at 2:56 PM Rating: Decent
Official Shrubbery Waterer
*****
14,032 posts
Guenny wrote:
Demea wrote:
Guenny wrote:
Yes, birth control and cancer screening are important, but what's really important for EVERYONE's health is easy access to STD testing. The less people that are getting tested, the more likely sh*t will spread. It's a scary world we live in.

I'd rather fund cancer screening than birth control or STD testing; the former is a horrible and horribly expensive disease without selection bias, while the latter two are the result of conscious decisions while failing to take proper protection measures. I mean, honestly, condoms aren't that expensive.


No, condoms aren't expensive, but they also don't protect you 100% from STDs. There's really no way to be 100% safe from STDs or pregnancy, no matter how much protection/birth control you use, short of abstinence. And since we all belong to the human species, which is very sexual, we better think about the real world and how effective telling anyone to just not have **** is.

But condoms offer at least some protection from STDs and pregnancy, right? And there's always abstinence, right?

It's funny, because I don't recall hearing about any $5 products on sale at every grocery store, pharmacy, and gas station in the country that protects even a little from cancer.
____________________________
Almalieque wrote:
I'm biased against statistics

#49 May 11 2011 at 2:56 PM Rating: Decent
We Does Not Hugglez
*****
10,245 posts
Demea wrote:
How many 15- or 16-year-old girls are on birth control?

Not enough, apparently.
Demea wrote:
I seem to distinctly remember taking a sex-education course in 6th grade that included discussions of sex, pregnancy, contraception, and STDs. We had to look at slides of genital warts!

I pulled out a good 3, maybe 4 times after learning that **** could lead to kids.
____________________________
I had a very witty signature once, but apparently it offended the sensibilities of some of the frailer constitutions that frequent this particular internet message board.

[The rest of this message has been censored and I can't tell you what I actually think of you]
#50 May 11 2011 at 2:59 PM Rating: Decent
We Does Not Hugglez
*****
10,245 posts
Nilatai wrote:
MoebiusLord wrote:
Nilatai wrote:
MoebiusLord wrote:
Ohhhhh! I get it now. In the U.K. "every case" means "every time the U.N. monitors the spending in some 3rd world sh:thole." Thanks for clearing that one up for me.

Seriously? You can't be have that tenuous a hold on normal brain function.
Ooh, so you don't see studies that show that putting money into programs like planned parenthood helps poor people be less poor as relevant? Awesome, I guess the 44 million US citizens who live below the poverty line can go suck a **** huh?

Again, go fuck yourself.

"every case"

Say it with me, slowly, one syllable at a time. It's simple, because there are only 4.

"every case"

See? It's easy. Even for a Brit.

It's a terrible burden, being right. I shall, someday, succumb to the immense pressure, I think.

Not today, but someday.
It is every case you fuckwit. You don't think the US' poverty statistics would be a lot worse off if birth control weren't as readily available as it is?

As I said, prove it. I have shown, clearly, that increased spending on social services, of which Planned Parenthood is a part in this country, does not lead to a significant decrease in poverty. You have yet to provide any data to refute that.

I understand why. It's because there is none. You keep pointing to your backwater sh:tholes study though, because that's so effective.
____________________________
I had a very witty signature once, but apparently it offended the sensibilities of some of the frailer constitutions that frequent this particular internet message board.

[The rest of this message has been censored and I can't tell you what I actually think of you]
#51 May 11 2011 at 3:00 PM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
Demea wrote:
I seem to distinctly remember taking a sex-education course in 6th grade that included discussions of sex, pregnancy, contraception, and STDs.

Things must have changed dramatically between when you and I were in 6th grade (assuming **** ed in IL is broadly the same across local districts). 5th grade was learning about changing bodies and how babies are made, 7th grade was the same thing but more in depth (and I think some STD information) and the first mention of contraception came during 10th grade health.

Edited, May 11th 2011 4:01pm by Jophiel
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
« Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
Reply To Thread

Colors Smileys Quote OriginalQuote Checked Help

 

Recent Visitors: 22 All times are in CDT
Anonymous Guests (22)